Slashdot Mirror
Legislation To Make Web Devices Accessible To Disabled Users
pgmrdlm writes "In an effort to make web devices accessible to the disabled, the 21st Century Communications and Video Accessibility Act (H.R. 3101), submitted by Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-MA) passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 348 to 23. The related Senate bill has been introduced by Senator Mark Pryor (D-AR). Quoting Representative Markey's website: 'We've moved from Braille to Broadcast, from Broadband to the Blackberry. We've moved from spelling letters in someone's palm to the Palm Pilot. And we must make all of these devices accessible.' The Washington Post coverage notes, 'Some broadcasters put videos on the Internet with captions, but not all. That can make inaccessible everything from the political videos that are now common on the Web to pop culture clips that turn viral.' As someone who has 20/200 vision with my glasses on, I completely agree that the web has not been kind to individuals with various disabilities. But due to the size of the web, and the large number of different devices that access it, is it even possible to legislate something of this nature? Or should we rely on education and peer pressure on the various manufacturers?"
I've heard that most browsers come with a zoom feature so you can get print as large as you want.
What makes you believe he believes that? It's pretty obvious that "productive class" doesn't mean "as opposed to people with vision deficiency" but "as opposed to politicians".
If all media were required to be presented in all manner of forms so that anybody with any disability or who speaks any language could make use of it, everything would be extremely costly to create. that would be economic destruction, plain and simple.
even if it would employ thousands of otherwise unemployed translators, it would be a huge expense for little benefit.
should government websites be disabled-accessable? sure. public services? obviously.
news websites? questionable.
viral videos? christ, sometimes i wish i was disables so I COULDN'T be exposed to them...
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
You're totally trolling and I should be using my points to mod you down, but instead I'll provide a different outlook for your consideration.
Many people in this country still access the internet using a dial-up 56K modem - many of _them_ are achieving only half that speed, due to physical distances and line quality. They cannot access many of the web's features in any kind of timely manner. However, I don't see a requirement in the bill for broadband access to be made available in gratis to all people regardless of creed, color, marital status or disability. In fact, providing any form of internet or multimedia access is not a requirement laid out anywhere in our laws. People of all disabilities still have to pay for their computers, pay for their internet access, and pay for everyday items to maintain their quality of life. So yes, money is a very important factor.
Innovations in multimedia have been made by consumers spending money in that segment (aka Capitalism), not by the government requiring technology companies to make devices to service a minority. If there is a gaping hole in the way information and multimedia is distributed, you would think there would be companies trying to capitalize on providing services to that minority. Because that's the way it has worked in the past. The future is going that way too, on it's own. It does not need help from soon-to-be-outdated government bills.
Go to the link where the esteemed Senator is pontificating at length about the lack of subtitles (4th link in the summary, I believe).
First, you'll note that he did not upload subtitles to the videos on his site. Interesting, no? In a long pontification about the lack of accessibility on his own web site, he puts up video without subtitles. He did, at least, put up a transcript of the video on the site itself, but if you go to YouTube to find that video, it won't have the transcript. So he's seemingly in violation of his own principles (actually not at all unusual for a Congresscritter, but it's important to point these things out).
Second, you'll note that subtitles are available for that video. Since it was uploaded to YouTube, Google makes "audio transcription" available. While imperfect ("your personal courage" gets translated to "your personal carl", for example), it does get the gist of the video across.
So, if Markey is proposing that Closed Captions be available on all YouTube videos, then YouTube has already met the law to the standards Markey himself has demonstrated he wants.
"This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
Weirdly enough meeting coding standards set out in HTML is almost always good enough. Keep style separate from content. Have alt text for images. Braille readers will be able to ignore the css and make all that html goodness meaningful.
The FCC has a call for public comment on this topic.
I paid the going retail price for a Windows screen reader and got a free Unix computer!